BakerHostetler 2015 Year-End Review of Class Actions
BakerHostetler cites the Center for Class Action Fairness's case in their 2015 Class Action Fairness Year-End Review.
CCAF Applauds Reduction in Attorneys’ Fees in Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Settlement
The court order means that consumers will receive $9 million more than they would have under class counsel’s original request.
CCAF Identifies Problems with Cy Pres Awards in Google Settlement
Today, the Center for Class Action Fairness (CCAF) filed a reply brief in the Gaos v. Google settlement appeal to the Ninth Circuit. In the original case plaintiffs’ lawyers sued Google for statutory damages for alleged federal privacy violations by their search engine. The settlement established an $8.5 million fund, none of which went to the class members affected by the privacy violations. Instead, the settlement fees were split between the plaintiffs’ lawyers –…
Podcast: When Enough is not Enough: Frank v. Poertner
Ted Frank speaks to the Federalist Society Litigation Practice Group Podcast regarding his cert petition with the Supreme Court in Frank v. Poertner.
Amicus Brief: In Re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation
The Center for Class Action Fairness recommends the court select lead plaintiffs’ counsel through a competitive bidding process among the dozens of attorneys expected to apply.
CCAF Challenges Duracell Battery Class Action Settlement, Files Cert Petition Before U.S. Supreme Court
Today, the CCAF filed a cert petition before the U.S. Supreme Court asking for review of a class action lawsuit settlement in Poertner v. The Gillette Co. The original case centered on a lawsuit over dubious advertising claims made about Duracell batteries. Class counsel structured a settlement that paid themselves $5.7 million, paid a small fraction of class members a total of $344,850, and left over 99 percent of the class with nothing.
CCAF Asks Supreme Court to Hear Challenge on Duracell Class Action Settlement
Today, the Center for Class Action Fairness petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case challenging an abusive class action practice where trial lawyers pay themselves the bulk of the cash recovery ($5.7 million), the class members receive just a fraction of that ($344,000), and the settlement hands out millions to third parties who are not part of the class.
CCAF Objects to Egregious 30% Fee Grab by Counsel in Polyurethane Class Suit Settlement
CCAF attorney Anna St. John said, “If awarded in full, the excessive fee requested by class counsel would transfer to plaintiffs’ attorneys tens of millions of dollars that rightfully belong to class members. It’s an all-too-common example of attorneys purporting to represent consumers harmed by unlawful business practices, when in reality these attorneys try to harm those same consumers again by seeking far more than they are entitled to by law.”
Amicus Brief: Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation
CCAF is concerned the Judicial Panel will not consider judicial track records in scrutinizing the fairness of settlements when deciding who to transfer the case to.
_%E2%80%93_Frontansicht,_1._Juni_2013,_Ratingen.jpg){kind=link}
In re Capital One TCPA Litigation Seventh Circuit appeal
We do not contend that a court can never award such a generous hourly rate. But the Seventh Circuit has “held repeatedly that, when deciding on appropriate fee levels in common-fund cases, courts must do their best to award counsel the market price for legal services, in light of the risk of nonpayment and the normal rate of compensation in the market at the time.” We do not believe a sophisticated arms-length transaction would produce this sort of windfall for these sorts of results, and we have appealed, filing our opening brief Monday.
- Go to the previous page
- 1
- …
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- …
- 38
- Go to the next page